I am just curious ..But if the question was asked of adventure gamers if they prefer a full game or an episode style of game if it would be almost 100% in favor of the full game at once. This being the case are there bigger companies out there that are going with episode type games? I guess I can understand from smaller indie companies that need to recoup cash flow in order to continue with a game. I am to the point that I am prepared to wait until a few of the episodes are available before I even start a game like this....I am so thankful to games like Deponia Satinav Book of unwritten tales and Zerzura lately that make these whole games at once that are really very good. I guess my point is are the bigger companies making episodic games and if so why if in fact they know the audience wants a full game....especially if there is the chance an episode may not even finish as we have seen countless times.

I know the more vocal members (by vocal I mean more abt to posting versus those that just browse)are partial to full length vs. episodic, but many gamers in general are drawn to the episodic because they require less time commitment. That is the very reason casuals do so well. The success of The Walking Dead and less initial funding for the developer required has definitely fueled the rise of episodic adventures.

I prefer full games to episodic as a general rule. However, I'll take what I can get. If there is a game I want to play that is episodic, I certainly don't want to miss out on it. For example, Cognition was my favorite game last year, even though it isn't finished yet. It would have been a shame to have skipped over it just because I didn't want to play "episodes."

@Hamer, you could always do what Mad does and wait until after all the episodes are released to play the game. That way you get the full completed games, and you can skip the games that never complete all their episodes.

My thought is that I would prefer a full game to episodes & would prefer to wait until all episodes have been completed - I just hate waiting for a story to continue (that also applies to TV series where I'd rather play them back-to-back on DVD!)

I know that it doesn't help the developers at all but would buy an episode if it was a complete story & doesn't leave you on a cliff-hanger - I've just played a few too many games that have relied on a sequel to continue a story that have just never turned up!

As a developer, I would still ideally like to produce full-length games, but realistically the episodic release formula is so much easier in terms of both cashflow (as you mentioned) and development that it must be considered. I'm using both models with different games depending on the specific circumstances.

Also, some themes lend themselves more to an episodic structure than others. Sam and Max I felt worked brilliantly because it felt like an interactive cartoon and thus you didn't actually expect something epic - but with Broken Sword for instance I think it would have been disastrous.

This trend towards episodic games is something I rather dislike. I understand the financial ramifications and the developers point of view.

However, as a consumer, I find it inconvenient if I'm being kind and down right irritating if not. Looking at it from a consumer point of view having to wait for the game to get finished and playing it a piece at a time tries my patience. Financially, an episode can cost between 10 and 20 dollars. Four episodes is between 40 and 80 dollars. If I wait until all 4 or 5 episodes are complete then it's usually on sale for around $29.95. So, the best way to handle playing these requires patience and waiting until all episodes are finished and then buying them in bulk.

But it is rather frustrating to wait if it's a game that really interests you. Therein lies the dilemma.

_________________________
You laugh because I'm differentI laugh because you're all the same

Well, as I said, I very much dislike "episodics" and probably the only reason I can stand the frustration of waiting for the whole game to be finished is that I have such a LOT of fully finished games not even started yet !!!!

Sometimes games are two-parters (or more-than-two-parters) because the company doesn't have the funds to complete the whole game. That was the case for Syberia and I believe it's also the case for Dracula IV and Face Noir. As long as the episode doesn't end on a cliffhanger, I'm OK with it. I understand that game development is expensive. But it's possible to put a satisfying ending on a game even if it's not the whole game. A cliffhanger emphasizes that you only got part of a game. A satisfying ending makes it seem more like you've got a game that's part of a series (like the AGON series or King's Quest series).

As regards price, the length of an episode and the nature of the ending is more of a consideration for me than the number of episodes and the total cost of the entire series. Game quality and other considerations being equal, $10 for a 3-hour episode is not as good a deal as $20 for a 10-hour episode.

Syberia stands up as a complete game. You don't have to play Syberia 2 to have a satisfying experience and you aren't left feeling as if you didn't get your money's worth. I really can't see mentioning Syberia in the same breath as Dracula 4 or Face Noir, both of which are incomplete and, in my opinion, nowhere near the same quality.

Gil.

_________________________
"Best not to think about it. I don't want to fall to bits 'cos of excess existential thought."

Syberia stands up as a complete game. You don't have to play Syberia 2 to have a satisfying experience and you aren't left feeling as if you didn't get your money's worth.

That's the whole point of not ending on a cliffhanger.

Quote:

I really can't see mentioning Syberia in the same breath as Dracula 4 or Face Noir, both of which are incomplete and, in my opinion, nowhere near the same quality.

Regardless of whether you or I consider Syberia to be a complete game or not, Microids and Sokal did not. Microids was working on Syberia 2 at the same time Syberia 1 went on sale, and representatives of Microids posted as much on adventure game forums. (Some of us even delayed playing Syberia until Syberia 2 came out.) Syberia was a Part 1 of 2 because Microids couldn't afford to release the whole game at once, just as with the other two games I mentioned.

The "episodic" trend is purely economical thing. In the world where less and less adventure games get funded (and even if they do, publishers prefer episodes to full games to see if the game sells enough to justify putting more money in the game), it's for many developers the only option.

I dislike episodic format myself too but when I was approached last year by a publisher, I agreed to it purely because we would be funded.

Also there is a bitter aftertaste of episodic games ending up with one episode. I'm glad that for example Cognition or TellTale games are here to rescue the episodic format.

Wouldn't that be a big punch in the face of those who supported the Enhanced Edition? No. Actually right now I work around 20 hours daily on Enhanced Edition and it turns out into point and click adventure more than I ever thought it would. The game is afoot and without episodes!

But there is one secret thing going on and GameBoomers might even one of these days find something about it.

But back to the topic. Would you consider Syberia 3 as part of those 2 episodes? I can't even imagine where the game would pick up.